The Ultimate Evil

A Child Abuse Awareness Blog

Roman Polanski and Hollywood: “Raping Children is O.K.”

(For a full list of Polanski movies in the event you want to do the right thing and boycott this child rapist:

Even Whoopi Goldberg, victim of childhood rape by a family member, says it wasn’t “rape-rape” when then 44 year old Roman Polanski drugged and forced vaginal and anal sex on a 13 year old girl. It wasn’t “rape-rape,” though, because we can all consent to sex when we’re drugged.  Age of consent laws? Oh, pish posh! Don’t be a prude! As long as it doesn’t cause physical harm – and we all know anal sex on children could never cause physical harm – and the child is too drugged and terrified to fight back, it’s all good!  And don’t forget that “No” always means “Yes!” as well as “Anal, please!”

As much sarcasm as the last paragraph contained, this is precisely the mindset child rapists and child rapist supporters want you to have.  When people who claim to abhor child rape call anti-pedophiles prudes and morality police, they are effectively saying child rape is acceptable.  It’s called comparison and we all learned about opposites and comparisons in grade school. If you are not one of two, then you must be the other.  If you are not under a table, then you must be over it.  If you are not blind, then you must be able to see.  If you are for child rapists, then you must be against laws that condemn them.  How difficult is it for anyone to not see such obvious logic?

I would think most people know who Roman Polanski is and what the big deal is over his escape from US jurisdiction for the past 30+ years. If you don’t, here are some links for you.  In March 1977, Polanski vaginally and anally raped a drugged and drunk 13 year old girl in the home of Jack Nicholson.

Here is the testimony of Samantha Jane Gailey, the girl he RAPED.  After reading it, you’ll be completely shocked and disgusted ANYONE would have the balls to support this sick bastard.

In a nutshell: Over the course of several visits, Polanski groomed Samantha and her mother by convincing them he would help her with photo shots like those he published in magazines, like Vogue.  During this time and without her mother’s knowledge, he talked her out of her clothes for some child pornography.

On the day of the assault, he had given her champagne to “pose” with for pictures when they were at Jack Nicholson’s house, and would get her to take sip after sip for the pictures. By the time he got her to take the pill, she describes herself as “pretty drunk” from the champagne he had her drink from not only her glass but his – for the “pictures.”

At some point, he talked her into getting into the jacuzzi naked, again “for pictures.”  This time, though, he went to the bathroom and emerged naked, then climbed into the jacuzzi.  She tried to move away and told him she had to go.  She even tried to say she had asthma when he tried to get her to go to him in the deeper end, where the water was so high he had to conveniently hold her up.

When she finally made it back inside the house, she told him she wanted to go home to get her asthma medicine. She had lied about the asthma and according to her testimony, the lie and asking to go home was because she was “afraid” of him.  When she sat on the couch to wait for him to take her home, he asked if she was okay and she told him she wasn’t and wanted to go.  His response was to kiss her even when she pushed him away and told him to stop.

So far, Hollywood, this isn’t sounding like a consensual rendezvous!

She told him she wanted to go home and his response? Forcing her panties off and forcing oral sex on her. She tried to push him away and begged for him to take her home, but she couldn’t fight back very well because she was “dizzy” from the Quaalude and champagne he plied her with all afternoon. He, then, forced himself into her.  She told him, “No,” but he didn’t stop and she was too afraid to do anymore because she was alone with him. During this time, he questioned her about her period and if she was on the pill.

A 13 year old girl alone, drugged, drunk and begging him to stop, and his primary concern was getting her pregnant. Some hero you have there, Hollywood!

While this drugged, drunk, pleading 13 year old being interrogated about birth control was being raped vaginally, Hollywood’s angel asked if she wanted him to do anal.  She said no.  He spread her legs higher and did it, anyway.

Am I the only person here who has yet to see “consensual sex”? Oh, excuse me .. Am I the only person here who sees this as “RAPE-RAPE”?!

Angelica Huston was there when Polanski and the girl arrived but she left shortly after.  She came back just as he was anally RAPING Samantha, who tried to put her panties on but was stopped by Polanski, who continued anally RAPING her until he orgasmed. She went to the bathroom and got dressed, then left the room even though he told her not to.  He made her wait for a while in the car crying while he did who-knows-what inside.  Then he complimented her on the great sex!

Angelica Huston was the person who reported the crime, though she didn’t think he was a bad man, just unhappy.  Kudos to her for reporting, backhand to her for being such a sympathetic dumbass.  Or maybe she’s just got a guilty conscience, as she should.  Who could listen to a child being anally raped and then report the crime after? You’re no hero, Angelica, for reporting to clear your dirty conscience!

So, Polanski ran to Sweden and France to avoid prosecution. Samantha was awarded $500,000 to shut her up and has since begged for this to be over, for them to just let it go because her family is being stalked and hounded by paparazzi and his celebrity friends. Of course, his celebrity nutjob friends are taking this as a sign she was never hurt and it’s A-OK to rape 13 year olds.

Ready to get even angrier?  Here is a sentence from the petition:

“His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.”

Morals!  Yes, it’s all based upon morally staunch American mentality that we consider it a crime to drug a child and have sex with them even when they are begging it to stop and pleading to go home to their mom.

What is going on in this country?  Why are we being led down a path of accepting child rape and molestation?  We bow to sexually deviant Europeans who call us prudish and afraid of sex by loosening up our laws on nude beaches – which have started allowing nude children, taking discussions on lowering AOC laws seriously, allow bills to reach the floor that would permit pedophilia, allow sexual predators their own outspoken groups, which hand out pamphlets “educating” us on the “beauty” of sex with children, arguing against laws banning convicted child rapists/sex offenders from living near playgrounds and schools, and on and on and on ……

At one time, child rape was something our country demonized third world countries for, like Andrew Vachss’ Don’t Buy Thai campaign.  We now rally against Islamic laws that allow rape of children and young boys to avoid going to hell for adultry.  We make movies and cry out against the victimized child soldiers of South Africa.  Yet, it is now okay in America (we all know it is in France and the homeland of Lindsay Ashford) for children to be the sexual toys of adults.

Say that over and over out loud and try to find logic in it.  “It is okay for children to be sex toys of adults.  It is okay for children to be sex toys of adults.  It is okay for children to be sex toys of adults.  It is okay for children to be sex toys of adults.”  How do those words make you feel?  And why are you staying silent about it?!

This is what FBI agent, Bob Hamer – who infiltrated NAMBLA for 3 years, had to say about Polanski and our acceptance of his assault:

Polanski, NAMBLA and Checking Our Moral Compass
by J.R. Head

J.R. Head: Bob, you spent a lot of time and energy taking down the folks at NAMBLA.  As a father, hell, as a human being, I’d like to thank you for that.  Right now, though, I’m trying to look at the bigger picture.  What are your thoughts about these folks on the periphery of such activity, the facilitators and enablers of sex with children?
Bob Hamer: Wow!  No softball questions from you right out of the chute.

JRH: Not today.

BH: Well, I have never met a capitalist pacifist who owned gun store.  I believe fundamentally, the pacifist does not want to encourage what he perceives as a potential for violence, even if it might be profitable to own a gun store.  I’m a gun owner so don’t jump on me for that illustration but those I met while working undercover who helped facilitate sex with children saw nothing wrong with what they believed to be “consensual” sex with a child.  In fact, most believed an “enlightened” society would see the benefits of encouraging sex between consenting individuals of any age.  No one satisfactorily identified to me what those benefits were but “boy-lovers” as NAMBLA members refer to themselves often cite the ancient Greeks as an enlightened society.  The travel agent had no objection to putting together overseas trips even though he claimed not to be sexually attracted to boys.

JRH: So, it was about the money?

BH: Certainly there was a profit motive for him but he saw nothing wrong with men having sex with boys and told me so.  Had he found the actions abhorrent I would hope he would never facilitate such conduct.
A Chicago psychologist we arrested who had a PhD told me of seeing a five-year-old operating out of a boy-bar in Thailand.  The psychologist said he did not have sex with that particular boy because the child “didn’t do anything for me, but I can’t be…a hypocrite and say, you know, ‘don’t do that…’” The psychologist told me his age of preference was “ten to twelve” and saw nothing wrong with his conduct. In fact, he bragged about his conquests.

JRH: So, in his mind, having sex with kids is okay but God forbid he gets called a hypocrite.  Those are some messed up priorities, man.  Give me some info on NAMBLA.  What’s their story?

BH: NAMBLA was formed in 1978.  Ostensibly its purpose was to abolish age-of-consent laws.  As my three-year infiltration demonstrated, the organization made no effort whatsoever to change the law.  Its sole purpose was to allow like-minded men, sexually attracted to boys, to legally congregate under the protection of the 1st Amendment.  Even their definition of “consensual” differed from mine and I hope all of our readers.  They essentially defined “consensual” as “not bringing physical harm.”  I sat through a discussion where men believed it permissible to have oral sex with an eighteen-month-old boy as long as the boy wasn’t physically harmed.

JRH: You’re kidding me.  How the hell do they justify that?

BH: They justified the action because a child, while exploring his own body, might like the gentle touch of fondling himself.  Since the men believed they were in essence bringing pleasure to the child, their actions were permissible, even proper.  When that is your worldview, when you support men who believe those actions to be proper, it is easy to justify a lot of actions the rest of society deems illegal, even evil.
Most NAMBLA members with whom I interacted believe the boy-lover philosophy will be mainstreamed within their lifetimes.  I would have never thought that even remotely possible until recently.

JRH: That’s the vibe I’ve been getting lately, too.  While reading “The Last Undercover,” I was filled with feelings of revulsion and anger about what these predators do.  I was especially disturbed to hear how they “profile” their potential prey and engage in the “grooming” of the target and the target’s family.  On the other hand, an understanding that the vast majority of people in the country would feel the same way about it comforted me.  However, the Polanski situation has kind of made me reevaluate my worldview.  Is the moral outrage over having sex with children eroding before our very eyes?

BH: After investigating organized crime, drugs, terrorism, and child exploitation for two and a half decades, little shocks me but I am appalled at the Roman Polanski apologists.  Since when does being a “brilliant, fantastic genius” excuse anyone from heinous criminal conduct?  He admitted guilt.  He drugged, raped, and sodomized a thirteen-year-old girl.  Are we to excuse him only because his talent brought him riches and therefore he was wealthy enough to flee punishment?  Does Hollywood creativity allow one an alternative moral universe?

Whoopi Goldberg said on The View it wasn’t “rape-rape.”  No, it was non-consensual anal intercourse of a child.  Are we so perverted we will excuse such conduct because the perpetrator is an “artist?”  How can any parent or a person with a conscience condone such behavior?  Imagine the outrage of these same apologists had this been a TV evangelist or a priest.

I admire the victim who has forgiven Polanski but criminal charges are brought by the state.  A criminal indictment does not read “victim vs. defendant.”  It is the state or the federal government versus the accused.  Society is harmed by criminal conduct.  Apparently Polanski’s harm was greater than I first thought and not just to the child victim. It has infected a certain segment of society which condones the behavior and believes he should go unpunished.  Read the charges!  Read his admissions!  He deserves to be punished.

Polanski’s status as a Holocaust survivor has been cited as a reason excusing his criminal actions. As horrible as that experience must have been I can’t help but remember another survivor, Tibor Rubin. He wanted to pay back America for liberating him from the Mauthausen concentration camp in May 1945. Rubin joined the Army, fought in Korea, and was awarded the Medal of Honor.

JRH: I’ve met Mr. Rubin.  He struck me as an extremely humble and unassuming man.  He has an incredible story and I encourage my readers to look him up on the web.  That being said, Polanski is just one part of this.  The folks at ACORN who turned a blind eye to what they believed to be a brothel for child prostitutes also bothered me.  Now, I’m hearing about this Jennings fellow.  Do you have any insight into that?

BH: Kevin Jennings is President Obama’s Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education.  His history and beliefs are well documented in the numerous books he has authored and edited.  There is some dispute as to the legality of his conduct while working as a teacher but by Jennings’ own admission the only counseling he gave a male high school student, who admitted having sex with a man he met in a public restroom, was to use a condom.  Jennings also has high praise for Harry Hay.  If NAMBLA had a Hall of Fame, Hay would be a member.  Hay fought for NAMBLA’s inclusion in the International Lesbian and Gay Association and once carried a sign proclaiming “NAMBLA Walks With Me.”  Although Hay died before I was invited to attend any of NAMBLA’s secret, underground meetings, Hay was a featured speaker at several NAMBLA conferences and at forums on man/boy love.  When members of the Administration admit to admiring a NAMBLA icon it gives me cause for concern and is at the very least a reason for further inquiry.

JRH: I agree.  Do you feel like this is part of an inevitable coarsening of society in regards to the sexualization of children?

BH: What struck me about NAMBLA was how many men I encountered were high functioning members of our society…doctors, lawyers, ministers, teachers.  Yet these men looked upon boys as sexual objects and had no desire to change their behavior.  In the case of Polanski, “artists” are apologists for child rape.  As to ACORN, let me say I have the highest regard for the work of James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles.  The ACORN tapes reinforce the idea that a segment of this society is unable to discern evil.  How can you label oral sex on infants or rape of a thirteen-year-old girl or promoting childhood prostitution as anything but evil?  We as a society must remain vigilant and maintain our moral compass.  I fear too many have lost theirs or never had one.

For more truth, discussion, and debate about Roman Polanski, check out Big Hollywood.
Woody Allen (big surprise there), Wes Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, Jonatham Demme, Stephen Frears, David Lynch, Martin Scorsese, Fatih Akin, Stephane Allagnon, Pedro Almodovar, Wes Anderson, Jean-Jacques Annaud, Alexandre Arcady, Fanny Ardant, Asia Argento, Darren Aronofsky, Olivier Assayas, Alexander Astruc, Gabriel Auer, Luc Barnier , Christophe Barratier, Xavier Beauvois , Liria Begeja , Gilles Behat, Jean-Jacques Beineix, Marco Bellochio, Monica Bellucci, Djamel Bennecib, Giuseppe Bertolucci , Patrick Bouchitey, Paul Boujenah, Jacques Bral, Patrick Braoudé, André Buytaers, Christian Carion, Henning Carlsen, Jean-michel Carre, Mathieu Celary, Patrice Chéreau, Elie Chouraqui, Souleymane Cissé, Alain Corneau, Jérôme Cornuau, Miguel Courtois, Dominique Crevecoeur, Alfonso Cuaron, Luc et Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Jonathan Demme, Alexandre Desplat, Rosalinde et Michel Deville, Georges Dybman, Jacques Fansten, Joël Farges, Gianluca Farinelli (Cinémathèque de de Bologne), Etienne Faure, Michel Ferry, Scott Foundas, Stephen Frears, Thierry Frémaux, Sam Gabarski, René Gainville, Tony Gatlif, Costa Gavras, Jean-Marc Ghanassia, Terry Gilliam, Christian Gion, Marc Guidoni, Buck Henry, David Heyman, Laurent Heynemann, Robert Hossein, Jean-Loup Hubert, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Gilles Jacob, Just Jaeckin, Alain Jessua, Pierre Jolivet, Kent Jones (World Cinema Foundation), Roger Kahane, Nelly Kaplan, Wong Kar Waï, Ladislas Kijno, Harmony Korinne, Jan Kounen, Diane Kurys, Emir Kusturica, John Landis, Claude Lanzmann, André Larquié, Vinciane Lecocq, Patrice Leconte, Claude Lelouch, Gérard Lenne, David Lynch, Michael Mann, François Margolin, Jean-PierreMarois, Tonie Marshall, Mario Martone, Nicolas Mauvernay, Radu Mihaileanu, Claude Miller, Mario Monicelli, Jeanne Moreau, Sandra Nicolier, Michel Ocelot, Alexander Payne, Richard Pena (Directeur Festival de NY), Michele Placido, Philippe Radault, Jean-Paul Rappeneau, Raphael Rebibo, Yasmina Reza, Jacques Richard, Laurence Roulet, Walter Salles, Jean-Paul Salomé, Marc Sandberg, Jerry Schatzberg, Julian Schnabel, Barbet Schroeder, Ettore Scola, Martin Scorsese, Charlotte Silvera, Abderrahmane Sissako, Paolo Sorrentino, Guillaume Stirn, Tilda Swinton, Jean-Charles Tacchella, Radovan Tadic, Danis Tanovic, Bertrand Tavernier, Cécile Telerman, Alain Terzian, Pascal Thomas, Giuseppe Tornatore, Serge Toubiana, Nadine Trintignant, Tom Tykwer, Alexandre Tylski, Betrand Van Effenterre, Wim Wenders, Isabelle Adjani, Antoine Aronin, Paul Auster, Morgane Beauverger, Candice Belaisch-Goldchmit, Yamina Benguigui, Pascal Bruckner, Jessika Cohen, Philippe Corbé, Jean-Paul Dayan, Katarina De Meulder, Arielle Dombasle, Nathalie Faucheux, Corinne Figuet, Pierre Forciniti, Louis Garrel, Albert Gauvin, Johanna Gozlan, Davide Homitsu Riboli, Taylor Hackford, Isabelle Huppert, Neil Jordan, Thierry Kamami, Milan Kundera, Gaelle Lancien,Claude Lanzmann,Bernard-Henri, Lévy, Sam Mendes, Camille Meyer, Patrick Mimouni, Yann Moix, Mike Nichols, Sandra Nicolier, Marie Nieves Perez Neël, Salman Rushdie, Carine Sarna, Ysabelle Saura Del Pan, William Shawcross, Olivier Soares Barbosa, Steven Soderbergh, Nil Symchowicz, Danièle Thompson, Eugenia Varela Navarro, Diane von Furstenberg, Scott Foundas, Margaret Walker, Elsa Zylberstein, and more is added by the week.

Yet everyone condemned Paris Hilton for driving drunk. She should have raped a kid.

March 4, 2010 - Posted by | Child Abuse, Dangerous Trends, Pedophile Defenders, Pedophiles Exposed, Roman Polanski

1 Comment »

  1. This is absured and fucking ridiculous. I will never like Whoopi again.
    And to all the people of the world, how can anyone justify un protected underage rape.
    This disgusts me, and I believe due to the fact this man raped and took advantage of a girl and was found out so he fleed, I think that if he made money in the years he was a criminal on the run he should be stripped of his wealth during that time.
    On another completley different topic, it is to weird that his name has arisen amongst other crimes and serious ones at that.
    Dont you think it odd that Sharon Tate was murdered and it was his wife, then he rapes a minor and is let to escape the country. His name is attatched to to many different things BAD in this world.
    He deserves to rot in jail, and not to be allowed to further his career. Funny that Woody also backs him up.
    Another perverted fucked up haman allowed to procreate with his adopted daughter. How wrong, and once again left to do what ever he wants. Fucked up world we live in.
    Marnie Dean.

    Comment by marnie dean | April 11, 2012 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: